Designing Ambiguity

DESIGNING AMBIGUITY by Caitlin Daly, AIA6

Understanding what flexible learning spaces are in educational design is as simple as it is complex. A flexible learning space is intended to allow for an interdisciplinary, active approach to learning. Spurred on by engageNY and NYS Next Generation Learning Standards, school districts are eagerly seeking to incorporate active learning methods into their curriculum to rejuvenate their learning spaces. From revised English Language Arts Learning Standards to Technology Education to STEM initiatives, shifting the method of teaching requires a shift in design. Conceptually, the flexible learning space is based on the simple idea of designating space adjacent to or within a larger, traditional teaching space to encourage small group learning, individual study, or one-on-one interaction. While architects have been developing these types of spaces with education clients for several years now what was being design did not always work as intended and some districts hesitant to develop existing spaces into new flexible learning labs. So how can architects pivot their current design thinking to achieve flexible learning spaces that successfully respond to the many unique programmatic needs within an individual school? GET WITH THE PROGRAM

Starting with programming, we open the dialogue to establish the rules we are using to paint a vision of the future. Gathering information from the users to establish the foundation by which we understand the space we are intended to design. Traditionally, this involves working with the district to establish

user groups based around different departments. Then, working with each user group, the team delves in the specifics of their programmatic requirements, including by not limited to technology, storage, and individual teaching methods. Continuing down this path allows for each program unit to be designed as a single entity, which usually results in a standardized yet subtly unique template for each class within that program. However, this traditional approach does not necessarily allow for cross pollination of spatial and programmatic ideas between curriculum programs. This begs the question, does the traditional approach to educational programming respond to the need for more interconnected, collaborative learning that is becoming apparent in the curriculum guidelines? Or are we tying ourselves into singular solutions? For the CSArch design team that worked with Queensbury Union Free School District, these were questions they had to answer as they began the project. At the beginning, the collective team discussed how changes in the teaching methodology could inspire transformations in the classroom form and vice versa. This led the design team to break the program user groups into blocks around STEM, Humanities, Central Support, Innovations, and the Arts with the goal of deconstructing the traditional silos and replacing them with interdisciplinary instructional communities. Intentionally breaking down barriers between teaching, studying, and gathering spaces through physical and visual connections created a complete learning environment providing multiple ways to interact and engage with the students. One feature the users gravitated towards are extended collaboration pod spread throughout the plan filled with a range of moveable seating, and technology, offering the chance for informal discussion and group projects. THE IMPACT OF TECHNOLOGY ON FLEXIBILITY

Acknowledging the mass of technology that is required to bring a 21st century classroom to life does start to design in certain limitations. While the design team was discussing what the district really envisioned for collaborative learning, areas within each of the program units were being selected for teaching walls, and technology integration was locking down the form of the space to hold to the schedule. As far as traditional design goes, there is nothing unusual about that process. However, this focus on flexibility is transitioning the architect’s viewpoint away from the physical design of the building to its use by staff and students, which continues our

Photo Credit: © David Lamb

intervention beyond the construction of our project. Expecting architects to project their design into the future and readily adapt to unexpected circumstances. As architects we can no longer be satisfied with providing an empty box with walls, ceilings, or floors full of access to data, power, whiteboards, and moveable furniture. While our client is focused on the driving the current and future use of the space, I must ask myself, what about flexibility can we learn or are we still leaving districts with empty shells expecting them to fill in the gaps? WHAT’S THE PROBLEM WITH FLEXIBILITY?

Analyzing a flexible learning lab, some potential flaws exist. First, is acoustics. While the open feel is an inviting contrast to a constrained classroom, not every flexible learning space is designed with acoustics in mind. As with any education space, effectiveness in the ability to learn must present, yet the informality and spontaneity is a key factor in many types of active, fast-paced group work. Second, there is not enough flexibility to account for the rapidly changing technology. Locked in at the edges of the space, there are limited ways to arrange students and maintain access to the latest technology. Cord reels from the ceilings or floor boxes only go so far to provide students and teachers with the ability to plug in regardless of arrangement. For the collective team at Queensbury making the decision to build in programmatic as well as community based flexible learning spaces starts to elevate some tensions around technology, however no design will solve all of them. Lastly, the space was not different enough from a typical classroom to encourage people to use the space. Incorporating teaching walls and mobile furniture is not exceedingly different from a classroom. All this goes back to the first question, is the client looking for an interdisciplinary solution or a singular one? A flexible learning spaces could be designed in a single room, if they allowed for larger or smaller groups to break out for independent study or teaching. Flexibility is only as powerful as the ability to utilize the space. “The design of a space has to go beyond the needs of the users or even the best designed spaces sit vacant.” Given the fast-paced modern world, there is nothing to say that a design will not become obsolete. The questions then are not how does a space work, but how could it work. Specifically, when discussing learning environments, the focus needs to be on how we can engage the user. Understanding that the core spatial needs for most of the programs will remain constant, focusing on how programs interact and relate will drive educational design forward. Allowing for juxtapositions between programs starts to break down the traditional barriers and create flexible learning spaces encouraging teachers to think beyond traditional teaching methods and fosters a notion of life-long learning. Our responsibility is to design these areas of intervention in a manner which allows for continuing fluctuation. Being bound by the traditional, program-first notion of designing boxes for our clients hinders their ability to explore the changing curriculum. By expanding our view of flexible learning spaces, the design team has opportunity to design out certain limitation, thus design in more future possibilities. l

Photo Credit: © David Lamb

Caitlin is a Project Architect at CSArch, an educational design firm based in Albany and Newburgh.